To clear up what seems to be a factual misconception: Saddam had WMDs. U.S. troops found WMDs in Iraq. Apparently many Americans and Europeans are unable to understand that sarin gas is a WMD unless they are in a village when sarin is released and kills everyone. Nuclear weapons (which are far from the most deadly form of WMD) were not found Iraq, though the chances that something made its way into Iran or Syria are far above zero. Saddam certainly had a whole lot of yellowcake uranium. We know this for a fact because said yellowcake is now being used for nuclear fuel in Canada. Saddam no doubt amassed all this uranium because there isn’t enough oil in Iraq. Or perhaps because Saddam was so concerned about clean energy. That said, the WMD thing was never a good reason to go to war. By that argument, the U.S. should invade Russia, which certainly has far more WMDs than Iraq and whose containment of them does not inspire confidence. (Note: I am _not_ saying this would be a good idea.) There were plenty of other good reasons for enacting regime change in Iraq, which has turned out to be the most beneficient U.S.-led foreign policy achievement since the Berlin wall came down.

I am sorry that I missed the “local food” debate. Hopefully all those militantly in favor of always eating locally were encouraged to spend 6 months with the Inuit, providing manual labor in exchange for only locally-grown food. It’s December: now would be a perfect time to start.

The $2 trillion (now closer to $3 trillion) hit to the economy itself puts him way behind other historical candidates, before you even start tallying his other “contributions.”